Thursday, May 31, 2012

This is a new experience for me: An entire night of inability to sleep, with a full day of meetings and shiurim ahead. I am going to be an absolute joy today...

In any case: Here's a piece that caught me eye, in preparing for a Pirkei Avot shiur. It's from Rav Chaim of Volozhin's Ruach Chaim to Avot 1:4, on the counsel, "יהי ביתך בית וועד לחכמים הוי מתאבק בעפר רגליהם," "Make your home a meetingplace for the sages, and wrestle [הוי מתאבק] in the dust of their feet":

The word מתאבק is like "And the man wrestled [ויאבק] with him," a battle, for this is a mitzvah war.

And so are we opposite our rebbeim, the holy ones who lie in the ground but whose souls are in the heavens, the famous authors whose texts are with us. Via the texts in our homes, our homes become meetingplaces for these sages.

We are instructed, too, and given permission to battle verbally and answer their questions, and not to show favour to anyone but to love truth. However, one must be careful for his life, lest he speak arrogantly and with haughty heart when he finds room to argue, imagining he is as great as his rebbe or the author of the text he is challenging. He should know that many times he doesn't understand the words and intent of the author, and so he should only be very humble, saying, "If I am inadequate, still, it is Torah, etc." This is "Wrestle," as we have said, but on the condition that it is "in the dust of their feet," meaning in modesty and humility, arguing on the ground before them.

Wednesday, May 30, 2012

The Dubna Magid (Ohel Yaakov to Parshat Naso) says that the Kohen, when he raises his hands and recites the words of birchas kohanim, is actually communicating a message to the community: Make yourselves worthy of HaShem's blessings.

To me, this presents the Kohen as an educator, and that triggered a thought for me this week: There are many parallels between the Kohen and the Teacher. [This aside from the actual role of kohanim as teachers, per Devarim 33:10 and more.]

The Kohen's arena is the Beit haMikdash, a building and campus permeated with the presence of the Shechinah, into which no impurity may be brought. The Kohen travels between clearly defined areas of greater and lesser sanctity, all devoted to the central purpose of facilitating the national and individual connection with the Divine. The nation is responsible for the upkeep of the site; fortunately, citizens understand its importance and dedicate property for its maintenance. The Beit haMikdash is always available to the public, but at certain times during the year it is specifically, majestically revealed to the eyes and hearts of visitors.

The Kohen represents the refined Jew, displaying no blemish. He is armed with the passion of Levi, and the warmth of Aharon. The Kohen maintains himself in purity, via strict discipline. The community supports him, so that he will engage in his duties fully and wholeheartedly.

The Kohen rises early in the morning and races to his task with vigor, even battling other kohanim for the honor of serving. The Kohen must remain focussed upon his task; thoughts of impropriety render his work invalid, and at a great potential price. Kohanim are instructed to perform their tasks, and not those of the other work force in the Beit Midrash; each has a unique role to play.

Of course, there are areas in which the parallels fall short; the role of teacher should not be an automatic inheritance, for example. Nonetheless, I think we could do quite a bit with this analogy.

Tuesday, May 29, 2012

For this week's Business Ethics lunch, I plan on looking at the following two cases; thoughts welcome:

1. Janet is an independent auditor who often uses the services of Bill's valuation practice to appraise shares and businesses. Janet eventually realizes that Bill's billings to his clients [although not to her] are fraudulently inaccurate. Assuming Bill won't listen to Janet's rebuke, is Janet obligated to part ways with Bill?

2. A religious school would like to hire Dror, a citizen of another country, to serve as receptionist. Sarah, the school's new office manager, contends that a Labour Market Opinion is required in order to legally hire Dror, but the school's CEO laughs and informs her that Dror's position will be considered "religious work" and therefore will be exempt from this requirement. Is Sarah obligated to endanger her job by protesting?

Among the sources related to these vignettes, here are two [for the first vignette] which I find fascinating:

Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario, Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 407-2A member or firm engaged in a practice of public accounting to which another business or practice is related, or engaged in such related business or practice, shall be responsible to the Institute for any failure of a non-member who is associated with such related business or practice and who is under the member’s or firm’s management or supervision or with whom the member or firm shares proprietary or other interest in such related business or practice to comply with the rules of professional conduct.

He warned them repeatedly to speak honestly from the heart, to be the same inside and out, and to distance themselves an arrow's shot from people of lies and trickery – even if those are people of Torah. I remember that my father [Ktav Sofer] once told me of a Torah scholar who was also wealthy and the author of a religious text, but who had absorbed heretical ideas and who had the traits of Lavan, humiliating the sages and causing them pain. His holy father [Chatam Sofer] had told him, "Believe me: Whenever that man leaves my home, I take a book of ethical instruction to study, for that man's breath communicates impurity."

Thursday, May 24, 2012

On the day after Pesach, on our family's trip back to Toronto, I chanced to daven shacharis in a small town about midway between Long Island and Toronto. After the first kaddish, a gentleman who had recited kaddish approached to tell me that I was davening too loud, enough so that it had disturbed him.

In truth, I sometimes do mutter a bit. And when I am exhausted my voice may drop a bit, into a more rumbling tone. And it was a very small room, so that all of us were very close together. All the same, I had been completely unaware.

Over the years, I have heard from several people, from multiple shuls, about their problems with co-congregants who daven in a tone that is loud enough to disturb them. I always noted that the audible daveners may simply be unaware of their volume – and now I had personal evidence that one could be loud enough to disturb, without realizing it at all.

So here are some suggested strategies for people who need to get the message across to their neighbours:

Ask him questions that relate to his davening – such as, "Based on your concentration in Barech Aleinu [a prayer for livelihood], sounds like you could use a hand!" Or "What did you do to make Slach Lanu [a prayer for forgiveness] so serious?"

Underline the word "Silent" in "Silent Amidah" in the siddur and hand it to him.

Wednesday, May 23, 2012

I posted a derashah on this topic for Shavuos a few years ago, but I think the core idea bears repeating with this column that appears in this week's Toronto Torah:

Ruth had been ruined by her life with Jews; her wealthy husband had died, along with his brother and father, and the family’s wealth was gone. Now her mother-in-law was preparing to return to a place where Moabites were persona non grata - and Ruth insisted on accompanying her.

Naami was astounded; what practical gain could be in store for an impoverished, friendless Moabite in a Jewish land? But Ruth insisted, “Don’t plead with me to leave you, to cease following you . Where you will go, I will go.” The book of Ruth doesn’t tell us what inspired her, only that she was idealistically certain that this was the nation and the G-d to whom she would commit her life.

Judaism tends toward the pragmatic: We focus on this world rather than meditate on reward in the afterlife. We save lives in violation of most mitzvot. We recognize civil government.

Nonetheless, Judaism has a long history of honouring the quixotic charge of the idealist: Avraham and Sarah welcomed strangers in the name of Gd. The Jews declared, “We will do and we will hear,” pledging obedience to a law they did not yet know. Our vision of Mashiach is of a pauper riding a donkey.

To borrow a passage from Man of La Mancha, “Maddest of all [is] to see life as it is, and not as it should be.” This idealism is a most Jewish concept; Judaism nods to the pragmatic, but it reveres the idealistic.

We have just finished commemorating a seven-week trek during which an entire nation was challenged to metamorphose from slaves into idealists. A slave cannot afford ideology, and throughout the desert trek a slavish pragmatism was quite visible; the constant attention to food and water reflected a mind that could not see past its most immediate needs. But, eventually, this nation stood at Sinai and established that idealism which would become Ruth’s mark.

On Shavuot we read Ruth’s story, and challenge ourselves: Will we establish that idealism, too?

Sarah is a certified tax accountant. Her friend Rachel, asks her for off-line advice on how to best report her earnings. Sarah advises her, but comes out of the conversation believing that Rachel is going to cheat on her forms. Is Sarah halachically obligated to pursue Rachel and convince her to obey the law?

Rabbi Tarfon said: I would be stunned if anyone in this generation would accept rebuke. If one would say, ‘Take a splinter from between your eyes,’ he would reply, ‘Take a beam from between your eyes.’

Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah said: I would be stunned if anyone in this generation would know how to rebuke.

One is specifically instructed to keep a Jew from sinning, for all Israel are responsible for each other, but not regarding non-Jews – even for their prohibitions. There is no joint responsibility, and so one need not separate them from it unless there were an issue of causing the blind to stumble.

Even if the pauper could take it on his own without it being placed in his hand, so that there would be no issue of causing the blind to stumble… there would be a rabbinic prohibition, since one must keep him from sinning.

This is where one does not know whether they will accept; as the Talmud says, "Is it obvious to them [that others won't listen]?" But where they definitely will not accept, leave them; better for them to sin accidentally than intentionally.

He knew they would not listen. But in case they might listen, or to avoid leaving them an opening for challenge, he should have rebuked them at least once.

Don't ask, don't tell

Sam, a certified tax accountant, is preparing Jill's taxes. Jill provides receipts for significant donations to CRA-recognized charities; her gifts total 20% of her income. When Sam notes the remarkable level of Jill's giving, she responds with a wink and a grin. Is Sam obligated to pursue this?

We do not purchase goats, kids, wool or tufts of wool from shepherds, but we purchase stitched clothing from them, because these are theirs. We may purchase milk and cheese in the wild, but not in urban areas.

A woman may lend her friend, who is suspected of violating Sabbatical laws, a sifter, sieve, strainer or oven, but she may neither sift nor grind with her… for one may not strengthen the hands of sinners. All that we permit is only for ways of peace.

One may not purchase stolen goods from a thief; it is a great sin, for it strengthens the hands of sinners. Regarding this we say (Proverbs 29:24), "One who splits with a thief hates his life." He causes him to steal further, for if the thief will not find a consumer then he will not steal. Granted, he could go where no one recognized that he was a thief, but this is not readily available; if all who knew him would refrain from purchasing from him, he would not steal as much.

Saturday, May 19, 2012

I am completely lost on the question of whether Yom Yerushalayim is observed on Sunday or Monday this year - a friend compared this with Purim Meshulash. The banner on the website of the City of Jerusalem says it's Sunday, but I've heard otherwise from people who should know...

In honour of the day, whenever it is, here is an excerpt from a1978 responsum of Rabbi Eliezer Waldenberg, זצ"ל, on the mitzvah of living in Jerusalem in our own day. This appears in Tzitz Eliezer 14:52, and I have added the Hebrew at the end:

[Regarding the mitzvah of living in Jerusalem and the prohibition against leaving it for another city, and the boundaries of this law:]

You asked that this ruling is given to subjective application [due to debates regarding the boundaries of sanctified Jerusalem]: I see no concern for subjective application, for this prohibition is tied to the boundaries of sanctified Jerusalem. The prohibition against leaving is definite in any place which is certainly within the boundaries. Where there is doubt which cannot be clarified on a practical level today, whether due to lack of knowledge or debate among authorities, one should follow the principle of ruling strictly in doubt in biblical matters and leniently in doubt in rabbinic matters. In truth, this is a matter in which many are lenient, and only special individuals in each generation are strict with themselves in this matter.

On the other hand, beyond the prohibition against leaving and in connection to your further question, it is quite certain that there is a major issue and great preference for living in the new Jerusalem, as opposed to other Israeli cities. It is the city united together, close to and visible from the royal palace. Even regarding burial, our sages of every generation preferred to be buried in Jerusalem rather than in other parts of Israel – even though the place of burial is outside the city…

Regarding your question as to whether the rule that roofs and upper floors were not sanctified in Jerusalem affects the law of living in sanctified Jerusalem, such that one who did not live on the ground floor itself would not achieve the level of living in Jerusalem, I will offer many answers.

First: The mitzvah of living there does not depend upon whether the place was sanctified by Man or not. It depends upon the space itself, for the space was sanctified with heavenly holiness and the mitzvah of living there is due to that heavenly holiness. This is seen in Chatam Sofer's statement (Yoreh Deah 234) regarding the right to force a spouse to live in Israel and Jerusalem, that it is not due to the mitzvot which depend on Israel and Jerusalem; it is due to the sanctity itself. The heavenly sanctity of Jerusalem, over that of Israel, is because Jerusalem has been the gate of heaven forever. This was so even when the Yevusi lived in Jerusalem… It emerges that the mitzvah of living there is from the depths of the earth to the heavens, without any connection to whether the roofs and upper floors were sanctified, or not.

Second: Many great authorities believe that the statement [of Rav] that roofs and upper floors were not sanctified applies only to the Beit haMikdash, not to Jerusalem. They explain Pesachim 85b, which seems to say that Rav made the statement regarding the roofs and upper floors of the city of Jerusalem, by saying either that Rav believes this but the law does not follow him because there are various Tannaitic sources which indicate that the roofs of Jerusalem were sanctified, or that Rav only said this regarding eating the korban pesach… to equate the roofs of Jerusalem with the roof of the Beit haMikdash…

Third: The Raavad (Tamid, Chapter 1) explained that even according to the view that upper floors and roofs were not sanctified, that refers only to those which existed when the Beit haMikdash was first sanctified. From then on, anything created within the airspace of the Beit haMikdash was sanctified, for construction of the Beit haMikdash could not remove the existing sanctity of the Beit haMikdash… The same should be true for Jerusalem: Houses or upper floors constructed after the sanctification of Jerusalem, including their roofs and upper floors, should not lose the sanctity of Jerusalem.

From all that we have said, it is clear and simple regarding the mitzvah of dwelling in Jerusalem that one who does not live on the ground floor still achieves the level of living in Jerusalem, and the laws of Jerusalem apply to them because of her great sanctity.

Thursday, May 17, 2012

Rafi at Life in Israeltook note recently of reported admissions changes at the Mir Yeshiva in Israel, under which admission would become more selective.

Of course, this will be welcome to those who contend that advanced Yeshiva should be like any other postgraduate study, open specifically to those who will excel in their studies. To others, those, this may be reminiscent of Rabban Gamliel's defeated policy of blocking entry to certain students (Berachot 28a):

That day, they removed the guard of the [yeshiva] entrance, and permission was granted for the students to enter. Previously, Rabban Gamliel had declared, "If a student is not the same inside and out, he shall not enter the yeshiva.That day, many benches were added. R' Yochanan reported that there was a debate between Abba Yosef ben Dostai and the Sages, one saying that 400 benches were added and the other saying 700 benches were added.Rabban Gamliel was upset; he said, "Perhaps, Gd forbid, I have kept Torah from Israel!" In a dream, they showed him white pails containing ashes. [This confirmed that the new students were only superficially pure, and were unworthy.] However, it was not so; this was shown to him only to settle his mind.

Granted that Rabban Gamliel's yeshiva was advanced, and not an elementary school. Nonetheless, the question remains: What are our day schools to do? Are we meant to deny admissions to those who are not up to the standard of "pure, inside and out"?

On the whole, the trend among halachic authorities is that we do not discriminate based on academic ability; rather, the community is expected to produce schools which can educate students at all levels. See, for example, Meiri to Pirkei Avot 1:1, the Tzofnat Paneiach (the Rogatchover) 2:17, and Rav Lau in Yachel Yisrael 2. [On the other hand, that is likely limited to basic schools, not an advanced yeshiva like the Mir.]

Denial of admission is more likely in the case of a potential student who displays poor character, out of concern that he may abuse the Torah he is taught, and that he may influence other students. This is a much trickier area. While the Rambam does say that we are obligated to improve such a student's character to the point where he will be able to learn, it is not clear who, exactly, is included in the obligated "we".

There are many interested parties here, with competing interests:Parents want the best education for their own children.Schools want to provide the best education for the maximum number of children.Budgeteers require that schools provide the best affordable education for the maximum number of children.Teachers want to provide the best education for the greatest manageable number of children.The Torah mandates that we provide the best education for all children.The pressure vectors point in every direction.

Last week I gave a shiur on the topic to a group of teachers. I have no conclusions, only sources; this is anything but simple. You can access it here, with a source sheet for downloading; note, the shiur is in Hebrew.

Tuesday, May 15, 2012

[Note: This post takes it as given that reciting Tehillim for those who are ill is a good and efficacious practice. The debate regarding that is interesting, but not for right now.]

I began saying two paragraphs of Tehillim each morning before Shacharis some time back, and the practice has grown on me. Aside from the contribution I believe I am making to people's health, I find it helps me get ready for my own davening, as well as feel good for the day.

But I have the question myself: When do you take someone off the list?

I am not talking about halting Tehillim [Psalms] because a situation is hopeless; rather, I'm talking about halting Tehillim because it seems that a person has recovered, or, at least, seems to be out of danger.

You know the situations; you are saying Tehillim –-on behalf of someone who is battling cancer, and the disease seems to have gone into remission.-on behalf of a person with Parkinsons's, and the progression seems to have slowed.-on behalf of a person who had a heart attack, and doctors have now determined that she has a chronic heart condition with which she will struggle for the rest of her life.-on behalf of a person who is recovering from a hip replacement, but she will need weeks of physical therapy.-on behalf of a person who had a stroke, and doctors think he may be out of danger, but he will be on blood thinners for the foreseeable future.

Rabbi, when do I stop saying Tehillim?

This is one of the hardest questions to answer, because it's much more about personality than it is about any halachah. It's also about superstition. Hope. Fear and uncertainty. Relationships.

So one might suggest that we never remove names, but that could be counterproductive. Part of the value, for me, is thinking about each individual name – but how do you do that, as they add up? And doesn't the intensity of the prayer bceome diluted as you add names and include less intense situations? And shouldn't someone be left out, to be included in the catch-all בתוך שאר חולי ישראל, "among the other ill of Israel"?

So I've never had a great answer for this one… The best I can come up with is to reduce the frequency of including certain names, or to create a substitute practice for them, such as dedicating part of one's learning on their behalf, or including them in the general shul "Mi sheBeirach". But I'm still searching for criteria.

Sunday, May 13, 2012

This is a set of vignettes and sources for a Medical Halachah shiur I am to give Monday evening; your feedback on the vignettes would be appreciated:

Obligations to Heal and Be Healed

לע"נ רב יהודה ב"ר יצחק הלוי ור' אברהם ב"ר יצחק

Introduction

Vignettes

·Susan, 89, has emphysema, cataracts and trigeminal neuralgia, and is diagnosed with Stage 2 breast cancer. Her doctor says the tumor is treatable with chemotherapy. Is Susan entitled to refuse the treatment?

·Alex, 74, has been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, and is refusing to consider radiation, surgery, or chemotherapy. Alex's wife, Jill, suggests to the physician that she could hide oral doses of the chemotherapy drug fluorouracil in his food. Should the physician pursue this course?

·Dr. Schwartz has a patient, Jim, 45, who suffers from hypertension and whose family has a history of heart trouble. For years, Dr. Schwartz has been advising Jim to take on a regimen of cardiovascular exercise and to control his diet, but Jim has ignored his advice. May Dr. Schwartz refuse to see Jim as a patient?

How do we know that one who sees another drowning in a river, being dragged by a beast or being attacked by bandits, is obligated to save him? It is written: "You shall not stand by the blood of your neighbour."

But is that law from this source? It is from that source: "How do we know one must restore a friend's physical loss? It is written: 'You shall restore it to him.'"! From there I would only have known personal restoration, not to hire someone.

The principle is that when the Jews are complete, the laws of nature will not govern them at all… They will not need a doctor and will not need to be careful about therapeutic activities at all, as it is written, ‘For I am HaShem your healer.’ And so the righteous did in the prophetic era…

His words there are stated regarding the foundation of things, at their root, when there are no external factors. However, since almost the great majority of people do not merit healing via miracles from Heaven, and the Torah itself says not to depend upon miracles, this permission applies to patients as well. Further, it is a mitzvah and obligation, since his life depends upon it.

If a patient needs to eat, and an expert doctor – Jewish or not Jewish – says that without eating his illness may worsen and he may be endangered, we feed him… Even if the patient denies needing it, we listen to the doctor.

If a patient’s refusal is because he does not trust the doctors, then they must find a doctor he trusts.

If there is no such doctor, and the disease is such that we cannot wait for him to understand that this is for his own good, and we cannot send him to another hospital and doctors in another town, then the doctors here must treat him against his will if all of the doctors in this hospital believe that this is the way to cure him.

This should be done in such a way that he is not frightened, even if his fright is foolish, for the fright could harm him, even fatally, and that would be like actively killing him…

And if the medicine itself is dangerous, and the doctors give it only to a patient whose illness is so dangerous that the danger involved in the therapy is less than that of the illness, then there is room to debate.

8.R’ Yitzchak Weiss, Minchat Yitzchak 4:120:2

מה מהני רצונה בזה, אם דינא הכי

What does the patient’s desire have to do with this?

9.Talmud, Sanhedrin 84b

בן מהו שיקיז דם לאביו רב מתנא אמר ואהבת לרעך כמוך

May a son let blood to treat his father? Rav Matna said: "Love your neighbour as yourself."

It appears to me that [we compel] only where he wishes to refrain from a definite treatment – and the default assumption regarding an expert doctor is that his treatments are 'definite'… But if he refuses because he doesn't think the cure is tested, even on his own say-so and certainly if another doctor agrees, then we do not compel him. This is certainly true if the patient is concerned that the treatment may harm him… And [we compel] only for a revealed illness or wound, where the doctor has definite knowledge and clear comprehension and is using a tested treatment…

Some choose to endanger their lives in order to avoid great pain, like those who undergo surgery for a kidneystone… which pains them like death. They may do so without protest, for they are often saved and healed.

One may not conduct such a surgery against the patient's will, or even try to convince him to agree, since this is a great and dangerous surgery which will only add to his suffering without any chance of restoring 'eternal' life.

Vignette 2 – Deceiving a patient

Vignette 3 – Refusing to care for a patient

13.Vayyikra 19:16

לא תלך רכיל בעמך לא תעמוד על דם רעך אני ד'

Do not travel as a peddler [of tales] in your nation; do not stand by the blood of your neighbour; I am Gd.

14.Talmud, Nedarim

לח: - המודר הנאה מחבירו... ומרפאו רפואת נפש אבל לא רפואת ממון

מא: - רפואת נפש גופו רפואת ממון בהמתו

38b - One who has vowed not to benefit someone else… may provide refuat nefesh but not refuat mammon.

The Torah gave permission to the doctor to heal, and this is a mitzvah and included in the general mitzvah of saving lives. One who restrains himself is spilling blood even if he has someone to heal him, for one may not merit to be healed by just anyone.

One Friday night, a Jewish girl drank poison and signs of death began. They came to a certain man on Friday night, and he rose and wrote an amulet for the girl; she vomited, and returned to health. This event became known in the city on Shabbat, and people gossiped that he had violated Shabbat wantonly, writing and giving this to her. He replied that saving lives overrides Shabbat. They were uncertain, and so the man has inquired as to whether he had sinned, and if it was a sin then whether it was biblical or rabbinic.